DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-4, 6, 8-9 and 11-13 in the reply filed on 07/07/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4 and 6, 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacripante et al. (US PGP 2014/0134534) in view of CN 10-3108945.
Sacripante teaches a toner comprising resin particles that composed substantially of biodegradable and recycled materials (Abstract). The recycled materials are taught to be comprise polyethylene terephthalate polymers ([0020]). The PET polymers are taught to comprise from 5 to 70% by weight of the polymers and the bio-based polymers are taught to be 25 to 90% by weight of the polymers ([0019]). The PET polymers are taught to be polyesters and specifically sulfonated polyesters ([0022], [0024], [0032]). Sacripante teaches that amounts outside of those ranges can also be used as design choice to achieve the desired sustainability content and therefore it is clear that Sacripante envisions an embodiment wherein the toner contains more recycled polymers than bio-based polymers ([0018-19]). In addition to the recycled PET based polymers above, Sacripante also teaches the use of plant-based polymers ([0025]).
In addition to the amorphous resin described above an aqueous dispersion comprising said resin is further taught by Sacripante ([0087-88]). Additionally, Sacripante teaches that a shell may be formed on the resin/toner particles and that said shell may be a sulfonated polyester resin ([0032], [0103-106] and [0116]). The toner may further comprise a crystalline polyester ([0024], [0036-9]), a release agent ([0066-70]) and a colorant ([0050-57]). The toner is further taught to comprise a colorant ([0050-57]) and a release agent ([0066-70]). The toner is additionally taught to comprise an external additive (surface additive, [0076-82]). The toners are further taught to be paired with carrier particles to form two component developer compositions ([0125-130]).
The toners and developers are additionally taught to be used in an image forming apparatus that performs and image forming method that reads on the Applicant’s limitations recited in claims 15-18 ([0131-138]). Sacripnate does not, however, teach a suitable molar percentage of sulfo group in the amorphous polymers.
CN ‘945 teaches the water solubility or water dispersability of a sulfonated polyester may be improved by setting the sulfonated monomer content within between 4 and 25 mol% ([0067-71]). As Sacripante is silent regarding suitable sulfonated monomer content in the amorphous polyester resins and as Sacripante teaches forming an aqueous dispersion of the sulfonated polyester resins one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to look to the prior art for guidance as to a suitable sulfonated monomer content. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to have imparted the sulfonated polyester resins of Sacripante with a sulfo group content within the range taught by CN ‘945.
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sacripante et al. (US PGP 2014/0134534) in view of CN 10-3108945 as applied to claims 1, 3-4 and 6, 8-9 and 11-13 above, and further in view of Yamashita et al. (US PGP 2023/0195005).
The complete disclosures of Sacripante and CN ‘945 above are included herein. Neither teach a solubility parameter for the sulfonated polyester resins.
Yamashita teaches a toner comprising resin particles having core particles and a resin shell ([0039-40]). The shell resin is taught to include resins comprising a sulfonic acid group and a solubility parameter of 9 to 13 (cal/cm3)1/2 ([0042], [0057-61] and [0094]). Yamashita teaches that a solubility parameter within this range is desirable in terms of ease of formation of the toner particles and that the SP value of the resin can be adjusted by changing monomer and monomer ratios through routine laboratory technique ([0094-95]). As such, it would have been obvious to any person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the instant application to have optimized the SP value of the resins of Sacripante as modified above by CN ‘945 to a value within the range taught by Yamashita for the shell resin of the resin particles in order to improve the ease of formation of the toner particles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER L VAJDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7150. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30-4:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mark Huff can be reached at (571)272-1385. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PETER L VAJDA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 07/25/2026
Prosecution Insights